SLIDE 1
LAND USE MODEL UPDATE
PLAC Meeting #3 October 9, 2014
1
Agenda
- Study Design and Methodology
- Current model limitations and enhancements
- Placetypes
- Suitability
- Control totals
- Allocation Results
2
LAND USE MODEL UPDATE PLAC Meeting #3 October 9, 2014 2 Agenda - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
LAND USE MODEL UPDATE PLAC Meeting #3 October 9, 2014 2 Agenda - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
1 LAND USE MODEL UPDATE PLAC Meeting #3 October 9, 2014 2 Agenda Study Design and Methodology Current model limitations and enhancements Placetypes Suitability Control totals Allocation Results 3 Study Design
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Study Design
- Limitations
- Physical Structure
- Redevelopment
Potential
- Placetypes
- Suitability Factors
- Enhancements
- Revised Base Structure
- Redevelopment
- Placetypes
- Enhance attributes
- Indicators
- Suitability
- Reviewed and modified
existing factors
3
SLIDE 4
Grid based polygons
- ¼ mile grid and 1 mile grids
- Tied TAZs
- 34,200 records
Coded into Cells:
- Constrained
- Undeveloped
- Developed
- Redevelopable
4
SLIDE 5
Redevelopment
- Typically doesn’t include residential
- Land values exceed the value of the buildings:
- High: Building value is less than 25 percent of land value
- Medium: Building value is between 25 and 75 percent of land value
- Low: Building value is between 75 and 100 percent of land value
5
SLIDE 6
6
SLIDE 7
7
Inner Loop
SLIDE 8
8
Northeast Shelby County
SLIDE 9
9
DeSoto County
SLIDE 10
Placetypes
- 18 Different Placetypes
- Custom Placetype Attributes:
- Site efficiency
- Residential density
- Floor-area ratio (FAR)
- Percent residential/non-
residential
- Employment types
- Development size
- Density
- Land use mix
- Visual qualities
- Custom indicators
10
SLIDE 11
11
SLIDE 12
Suitability
- Measures the attractiveness of an area for
accommodating growth
- Score between 0 – 100 is used to rank an area from least-
to most-suitable for development
lower higher SCORE
12
SLIDE 13
Suitability Factors
Suitability Factor Residential Non-Residential Industrial Impact Weight Impact Weight Impact Weight Cost of Land
+ 6.0 + 6.0 + 6.0
Proximity to Water and Sewer Services
+ 9.0 + 9.0 + 9.0
Proximity to Airport Service
- 2.0
+ 5.0 + 7.5
Regional Accessibility to Employment and Services
+ 7.5 + 6.5 + 6.0
Proximity to Intermodal Facilities
- 1.0
+ 3.0 + 8.0
Proximity to Major Roads/Interchanges
+ 5.5 + 8.0 + 8.0
Proximity to Retail/Commercial Centers
+ 7.0 + 7.0 + 4.0
Proximity to Schools
+ 8.0 + 4.0 + 1.0
Floodplains
- 9.0
- 9.0
- 9.0
Proximity to Transit and Active Transportation Modes
+ 6.5 + 6.5 + 6.5
Proximity to Civic, Recreational and Mid-South Greenprint Assets
+ 7.0 + 6.0 + 2.0
Redevelopment Potential
+ 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 13
SLIDE 14
Example of Suitability Scores (Major Roads)
14
SLIDE 15
15
SLIDE 16
16
SLIDE 17
17
SLIDE 18
Socioeconomic/Land Use Data at the Zone Level
- Households/population
- Households cross-classified by number
- f persons, number of workers, number
- f vehicles, income level
- Employment
- Categorized by industry type, based on
NAICS3 codes
Population Density Worker Density
ZONE LEVEL DATA ARE USED FOR BASE YEAR (2010) AND FORECAST YEARS
18
SLIDE 19
How Socioeconomic/Land Use Data Will Be Used in the Model
- How much people travel
- Household end – Number of trips per household
by purpose
- Non-home end – Number of trips based on
employment by type, households
- Other model components
- Mode choice – Measures of development density
affect travel choices
- Truck travel: – Number of truck trips based on
employment by type
- Intermediate stops on commute: – Locations of
stops based on activity at stop locations
19
SLIDE 20
2010 Household Density by TAZ (HH/Sq Mi)
20
SLIDE 21
2010 Employment Density by TAZ (Emp/Sq Mi)
21
SLIDE 22
Allocation
- Growth determined from control totals for
population/employment
- Distribute future growth based on placetypes and
suitability analysis
- Allocation constrained at the county level
22
SLIDE 23
Control Totals
County 2010 2040 Change (2010 – 2040) Crittenden 19,909 34,508 14,599 DeSoto 55,067 82,291 27,224 Fayette 8,757 19,708 10,951 Marshall 7,711 13,365 5,654 Shelby 516,180 771,368 255,188 Tate 6,744 11,689 4,945 Tipton 12,181 16,223 4,042 Tunica 14,359 24,888 10,529 Total 640,908 974,040 333,132
Population (Households) Total Employment
County 2010 2040 Change (2010 – 2040) Crittenden 19,026 19,066 40 DeSoto 57,734 104,577 46,843 Fayette 14,505 19,988 5,483 Marshall 13,369 15,989 2,620 Shelby 350,973 394,120 43,147 Tate 10,035 14,812 4,777 Tipton 21,629 31,608 9,979 Tunica 3,927 6,259 2,332 Total 491,198 606,419 115,221
23
SLIDE 24
HOUSEHOLD ALLOCATION
2010 to 2040
24
SLIDE 25
25
SLIDE 26
2010 Household Density by TAZ (HH/Sq Mi)
26
SLIDE 27
27
2040 Household Density by TAZ (HH/Sq Mi)
SLIDE 28
EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION
2010 to 2040
28
SLIDE 29
29
SLIDE 30
2010 Employment Density by TAZ (Emp/Sq Mi)
30
SLIDE 31
31
2040 Employment Density by TAZ (Emp/Sq Mi)
SLIDE 32
Next Steps
- Need Comments on Placetypes, Suitability, and
Allocations by Friday October 17, 2014
- Take Comments and Revise Model
- Submit final allocation result for approval
- ETC – 11/6/2014
- TPB – 11/20/2014
32
SLIDE 33
QUESTIONS?
Thanks for your Input!
33